Now this is a thing how can it be denied. If I say that there is something supra– physical and if somebody says show me it is really a rustic argument. A villager who does not understand his arguing show me the invisible I am saying it is invisible. He said show me. Do you agree that in asking the physical proof of supra–physical you are irrational? Fine on this question he has got to admit your position. If it is really supra physical you can’t have physical proof therefore my demand of physical proof is itself beside the point. He says all right I grant it, but show me invisibly the invisible. Isn’t it now it is a fair argument this is a good dialogue – show me the invisible invisibly? Now you see the dialogue is coming to a very narrow path. Now for you is a very big task because now for you the moment of truth has come for you. Until now you were only arguing with him to bring him out of his errors, but now may be that you will be found to erroneous position when he probes into you. By granting simply show me invisibly the invisible, so your first answer will be that there is an experience, there is an inner experience in which I see, what is not normally seen by physical eyes − for example, I see vision. I close my eyes and I see various kinds of visions. I see colours, I see numbers, I see figures. This is invisible seeing invisibly, it’s a fact, not only that but I find in these experiences something quite remarkable, so his answer is, you know when you close your eyes and when you see there are only after–images. You have seen a physical object, having seen that physical object when you close your eyes; you see the same object continuing for some time. This is called an after image. Say of course, this experience I have myself. You’re closing your eyes and seeing something I have also the experience. This is all that you mean by invisibly seeing invisible this is all that you see isn’t. Oh! that is nothing. It’s only an after image. It’s purely a physical impression continuing for sometime this is what you called invisible. It is true that when you close your eyes that object is not before you but it is simply an impression of the physical object on the physical organ which is persisting for some time. Where is your grand victory of something of something that you ever speaking about transcendental and all that. Now answers saying no my dear friend tell me what is an after image tell me what is an after image. Can after image be sustained for quite some time because the images that I see, when I close my eyes are not really after images because I know what is an after image and I also know what my vision tells me and one distinction between the two is that after image remains only for a short time and after that is gone it can’t be repeated. You can’t have after image, one after image then again repetition of after image another same time, third time after image. Where else the visions that I see are not of that kind. I have seen a figure when I close my eyes that figure I don’t see at all I see something quite different, which I have not seen just now that I see, this is where he finds it difficult now. You have given a good answer that there are experiences which are not of the type of after images. So he comes up with another argument and he says maybe that this is your personal idiosyncrasies of your brain. Your brain is such it rattles with some of the images of yesterday or day before yesterday or something other. It is very special kind of your subjective experience. Now this is a big argument in regard to subjectivity. This is as far as my knowledge is concerned all my knowledge is objective. My verifiable principle implies that what I state is experienced not merely by myself is experienced and shared by many other people. Then only I declare it to be knowledge but now you are coming with a subjective experience and subjective experience a mad man may see hundred lights. It doesn’t mean hundred lights exist. If you are drunk, you might see several things which are not there at all its purely subjective. It has nothing to do with the world as it is, or reality of any kind whether visible or invisible. Even if I grant it is pure imagination, pure hallucination, pure theory of invisibly seeing invisible is the theory of hallucinations and that is where he dismisses you finally. Now what is the answer to his question this where the third dialogue stops at this point. He would agree that there may be invisible perception of the invisible he may grant, but if your invisibility seen by invisible means is going to be only subjective then it can be dubbed or stigmatized to be nothing but pure hallucination, having very little value as far as knowledge is concerned. So this is the time for materialism against you, at this stage. You now come forward and say that my dear friend let us not dismiss argument at this point. Continue with me. This is where the materialist normally puts off his hand not by any argument. He just puts off his hands he does not have patience with you now and he feels that I have already been victorious against you. I have disproved you. All your experiences are hallucinations, subjective, unverifiable in any objective manner. Now what more do you want to ask me about besides I have got lot of others things to do you are just taking away my time. I had for the sake of argument I had just allowed you to argue with me. I conceded some points of yours also, but now what further. Normally, this is a third point at which the dialogue of the present time has stopped. The materialist is not prepared to go farther in the dialogue; he has thrown you out of the court according to him. Now you go back to yourself and ask yourself you want to teach however so how to teach? You have to be sure on your own that truly what you are saying is not hallucination. He has dismissed you as somebody subject to hallucination, but you want to be sure on your own, true, it is not hallucination. On what terms do you believe that it’s not hallucination?